I fucking hate this guy. Is there someone who proves him wrong?

>Oh, this ought to be fucking rich. How'd he do that?
By showing that Stirner's idea of owning the world was just like a six-year-old who says he rules the world.

Grunts are a spook too
Also
>"What Stirner says is a word, a thought, a concept; what he means is no word, no thought, no concept. What he says is not what is meant, and what he means is unsayable."

And....?

Oh dear spooks, another goy that misunderstood Stirner's concept of property.

You can't prove someone wrong when they literally ended philosophy

Oh, so you're a fucking idiot is what you're saying (oh wait, that's long been established; I fucking hate you). Stirner outright acknowledges that everyone is maintained through force and that you own only that which you possess. When he suggests viewing the world as though you own, he means to evaluate the world only as it is of interest to you.

Stirner is one of the most lucid philosophers, there's nothing to misunderstand.

Force isn't required, he considers a friend to be property.

>Stirner is one of the most lucid philosophers, there's nothing to misunderstand.

Yet here you are.

>Force isn't required, he considers a friend to be property.

Once again, you misunderstand property why are you so fucking stupid yet so willing to speak? You're a bloody blight on this board.

He doesn't mean that you own everyone and everything in the universe, that would be absurd as it directly contradicts his believe that you own only that which you maintain possession of.

"Johann Kaspar Schmidt (October 25, 1806 – June 26, 1856), better known as Max Stirner, was a German philosopher. He is often seen as one of the forerunners of nihilism, existentialism, psychoanalytic theory, postmodernism, and anarchism, especially of individualist anarchism.[3][4] Stirner's main work is The Ego and Its Own, also known as The Ego and His Own (Der Einzige und sein Eigentum in German, which translates literally as The Only One and His Property). This work was first published in 1845 in Leipzig, and has since appeared in numerous editions and translations."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner

"Stirner proposes that most commonly accepted social institutions – including the notion of State, property as a right, natural rights in general, and the very notion of society – were mere illusions, "spooks" or ghosts in the mind.[12]

He advocated egoism and a form of amoralism, in which individuals would unite in 'unions of egoists' only when it was in their self-interest to do so. For him, property simply comes about through might: "Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property." And, "What I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing." He says, "I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I respect nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!"[13] Stirner considers the world and everything in it, including other persons, available to one's taking or use without moral constraint[14] – that rights do not exist in regard to objects and people at all. He sees no rationality in taking the interests of others into account unless doing so furthers one's self-interest, which he believes is the only legitimate reason for acting. He denies society as being an actual entity, calling society a "spook" and that "the individuals are its reality" (The Ego and Its Own)."

>"What I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing." He says, "I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I respect nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!"

What were Marxs criticisms of Stirner?

Did he actually address Stirners thought specifically or was it applying a general criticism of moral nihilism?

>I take the world as what it is to me, as mine, as my property; I refer all to myself.

>Did he actually address Stirners thought specifically or was it applying a general criticism of moral nihilism?
He mentions Stirner twice, but the chapter he was going to write specifically addressing him was never completed; he does address the genealogy of Stirner's thought and its implications though.

>Stirner is one of the most lucid philosophers, there's nothing to misunderstand.

He might be lucid compared to the German Idealists that were big in his time but judging by the flawed criticisms of it in his time and the translations troubles of ours he is very easy to misunderstand.

Things like what he means by: Spirit, Einzige and the spook - property relationship for instance not to mention the creative nothing are all easy to misinterpret

So would it be accurate to say that it was a general chapter on moral nihilism or a different thinker with Stirner only being an incidental inclusion?

Are you actually autistic? Let's look at the last part of that statement, past the semicolon: "I refer all to myself." He clearly means that he views the world as his property in exactly the form I described, to view it as it is of interest to you. He's pretty fucking explicit (see ) that you own only that which you have the might to control.

Hey, why'd you abandon that thread when I proved you wrong about the criteria of how mental disorders are labeled as such? Why do you always abandon threads whenever you're proven wrong?

No, Stirner actually defines them pretty lucidly.

It was a chapter on more than moral nihilism, it was a chapter on modernism's dialectic. It's called "Nihilism" because he sees nihilism as the inexorable conclusion of that dialectic.

>Is there someone who proves him wrong?
why don't you try?

Why do you hate him?

>Stirner defines property as "of interest to you"

>Why do you always abandon threads whenever you're proven wrong?
I abandon threads when the person I'm arguing with uses circular logic or keeps repeating the same thing instead of addressing objections to said thing.

Yes, something you want that you can defend you can call your property. What you want is something that you alone can decide.

>No, Stirner actually defines them pretty lucidly.

Have you read any of the German Idealists of his time, because that might be a bias of yours?

>It was a chapter on more than moral nihilism, it was a chapter on modernism's dialectic. It's called "Nihilism" because he sees nihilism as the inexorable conclusion of that dialectic.

So it was a general chapter then. Have you come across any works that set out to refute Stirner or his method explicitly?

that's ironic considering that's the very foundation of your faith

Stirner didn't define that term at all. His translator did.

In that case, he refers to property as evaluating things as they are of interest to you, as one would evaluate property; not that you own fucking everything in the universe.

That's rich coming from you, you still haven't addressed which directly refutes your assertion, as he pretty clearly defines what it means to own something.

I actually hate you. Also you abandoned that thread after I quoted the DSM-IV directly and refuted your inane claim that mental disorders are evaluated on strictly hedonistic criteria.

...

...

I think it helps to remember that Constantine only posts here with the intention of leading people to Orthodoxy.

He has said more than a few times that he has always wanted nothing more than to be a christian and that if the truth was outside of that hed still choose Christianity.

If you dont hold East Orthodox Dogmas as axioms you cant really expect to have a good conversation

Constantine can never show her face again on this board without a visible bruise from that dickslapping.

So Stirner can defend the whole world?

I have read the German Idealists. Stirner is actually a pedestrian philosopher here. Schopenhauer is the only one of great note, because he doesn't pirate Christianity and envision a "new age" just over the horizon when his philosophy takes hold of the planet (something the rest of them do, in fact even non-idealists like Stirner and Nietzsche do it).

None of the German idealists are as lucid with their definitions as Stirner is.

>So it was a general chapter then. Have you come across any works that set out to refute Stirner or his method explicitly?
Except for Marx, no. There are certainly works set out to refute the idea that metaphysicals don't exist, but they don't waste ink mentioning Stirner. ALL relations are metaphysical.

How so?

>Stirner didn't define that term at all
Yes he did. Just very causally and in passing, "my possession, my property, and I choose it for its use"

> and refuted your inane claim that mental disorders are evaluated on strictly hedonistic criteria.
By quoting an undefined buzzword ("abnormal")?

>which directly refutes your assertion
Also disproves that Stirner owns the world, as he claims.

>Also disproves that Stirner owns the world, as he claims.

Holy fuck, you must be autistic. He never claims you own the fucking world. He says you should treat the world as though it were your property, but explicity says that you own only that which you possess.

I'm done here. You're a fucking worthless human being, who is completely incapable of arguing in good faith. You make everything worse wherever you are found, and I honestly, sincerely hate you. You represent something I vehemently hate in human beings: intellectual dishonesty.

>By quoting an undefined buzzword ("abnormal")?

By quoting the fucking DSM-IV. There was an entire paragraph on it.

>Yes he did. Just very causally and in passing, "my possession, my property, and I choose it for its use"

No, I mean you're getting hung up on a translation.

>How so?
you've admitted it yourself before in a thread about Zoroastrianism's supposed influence on Judaism awhile back. you tried to put me and you on equal footing by saying I assume a secular world view and you assume a christian world view

So you're suggesting he's just LARP'ing it's his property?

>By quoting the fucking DSM-IV. There was an entire paragraph on it.
Not that defined it.

Even if you have a secular worldview, my argument still has merit. That had more to do with the validity of prophecies.

>Not that defined it.

God fucking damnit, here I am again, because you managed to say this.

No, they outright state there is no working definition that is applicable to all situations, and that the process of categorizing mental illness includes a whole shitload of factors.

>I have read the German Idealists. Stirner is actually a pedestrian philosopher here.

Well given your background with thinkers like that is probably why he seems so pedestrian to you.

>Except for Marx, no. There are certainly works set out to refute the idea that metaphysicals don't exist, but they don't waste ink mentioning Stirner. ALL relations are metaphysical.

What were Marx's arguments? Did you find them convincing? Have you come across any good arguments against Stirner in your general eadings/postings?

>Also disproves that Stirner owns the world, as he claims.

Not that Im a part of that conversation

but might you be confusing ownership in the sense of seeing it as subordinate and disposable to your interests with the idea of ownership as having power over it?

Kind of like how you can make the concept of the state your property whilst not having power over its agents?

The Buddha.

which is a fundamental basis for christianity. how can you even justify Psalm 22 being prophecy without taking it on faith?

What argument or demonstration would you require for you to accept that anons interpretation of Stirner as opposed to your own?

t. Bernie "cucklord" Russell

>What were Marx's arguments?
Mostly Marx trying to the self is nothing and everyone is only and does only what their environment shapes them to do, plus a lot of Marx's cringey efforts at wit through things like namecalling,

>but might you be confusing ownership in the sense of seeing it as subordinate and disposable to your interests with the idea of ownership as having power over it?
Stirner doesn't really see a distinction here, because he's not working from a liberal framework. To him, a baby who can get her mother to feed her, can be said to have power over her mother; Stirner doesn't care about potentials, he only cares about what is; if you cause someone to do something, that was your power to do.

>Kind of like how you can make the concept of the state your property
For Stirner, no, except as a lie to use on others to further your own interests.

Well if you believe in Christ's Resurrection (which I've argued for), it makes logical sense to accept things like that as true.

It doesn't really matter which interpretation we go with. If we go with mine, Stirner is wrong. If we go with user's, Stirner is LARP'ing.

...

>Stirner is LARP'ing.

In what way?

Christ's body was removed by the jews and the romans because they feared the burial place would become a place of worship.
He woke up from his swoon afterwards.
t. knower

He saying, "Pretend it is your property even though you know it's not."

>Christ's body was removed by the jews and the romans because they feared the burial place would become a place of worship.
Doesn't make any sense. His tomb is a place of worship to this day, why would removing the body change that?

Evaluate it as your property, for if you were to exert the might to control it, it could very well be.

They couldn't have such foresight, they DID know what could happen to martyrs, however

alright, then you still have to take the gospel account on faith first. you have to assume that the apostles were trustworthy sources of information and that the gospels reliably give information directly from the apostles and from eyewitnesses. this is especially suspect when we have apparently have darkness covering Jerusalem or the whole world depending on how you read it following christ's death and we have a contemporary jewish source that does not mention it (Philo of Alexandria). there isn't a reason to think he was skeptical of such miracles since he mentioned the temple being bathed in light during the night to show God's displeasure before the revolt.

Your skills at misinterpreting other peoples arguments that you dont like is amazing

That doesn't make any sense.

"I'll get a ride to the club but I'll tell the guy I won't need a ride back, because all the cars at the club are my property were I to exert control over them even though I can't."

I would say it would make sense to evauluate something as it *could* be your property, but not only does Stirner say that, it would be completely out of line with his philosophy which disregards in total the might have or should be and sees only what is. Power to Stirner is not potential, it only exists if it is being utilized; that is why he sees things like the state as a spook.

no one knows what specific tomb is Jesus's. how is it still a place of worship?

They place guards to make sure no one removes the body to make it look like he's not dead (as happened a lot historically, there was a concern this would happen with Richard II), only to steal it away themselves without publicly saying so and making it look like Christ is immortal?

Philo didn't even live in Jerusalem, he hardly talks about contemporary events there except in the broadest terms, and if he heard such a story, being the intense rationalist that he was, he would have instantly regarded it as a fairy tale.

I made an argument as to why the Apostles were probably trustworthy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre

Here is an Orthodox hymn that has pictures of it
youtube.com/watch?v=noetoc2W4Pc

Do you know why they kept Hitler's teeth and dustributed it between the powers Constantine?
To prove to everyone that he did commit suicide on that day, so neo nazis couldn't claim he actually escaped.

Right, so the idea they would try to hid his teeth and other remains is a bit absurd.

even the wikipedia article says the tradition is from "at least the 4th century". to take this as proof that it is Jesus's tomb, let alone proof that he was resurrected you have to first take christianity on faith

If you say so, but that's just saying you in particular find it hard to believe.
However I will not keep posting because it's three AM and I need to sleep, bye.

>Stirner doesn't really see a distinction here, because he's not working from a liberal framework. To him, a baby who can get her mother to feed her, can be said to have power over her mother; Stirner doesn't care about potentials, he only cares about what is; if you cause someone to do something, that was your power to do.

Are you sure about that?

>For Stirner, no, except as a lie to use on others to further your own interests.

You can though in the sense that you pay taxes and support the laws that agree with your will (for instance reporting a terrorist) whilst not holding the state above you in the sense that you wouldnt jaywalk even if there was no chance of being caught.

>It doesn't really matter which interpretation we go with. If we go with mine, Stirner is wrong. If we go with user's, Stirner is LARP'ing.

Thats a different question though. I wasnt asking about implications of these interpretations only the evidence you would need to change yours view to allign with his.

I'm not sure where I'm suggesting any of this, my only point was an empty tomb doesn't stop it from being a place of worship, in fact it encourages. No ancient Messianic movement continued after the supposed Messiah died. Christianity would not have been a thing if there were no idea of Christ's Resurrection. The tomb might have been a place to way respects, but not worship.

You'd have to show something by Stirner saying he doesn't really own the world

Why are you so dishonest? >What I have in my power, that is my own.

Ok, now follow along with me.

>What I have in my power

This means he has to be capable of exerting power over it.

>that is my own.

This means he owns it.

Taken together, this means that things which he has in his power, he owns. Was that so fucking hard, you stupid little weasel?

DAAAYUUUM

>I'm going to be deliberately obtuse, otherwise my argument falls apart

>For it is one thing when I give up my previous course because it does not lead to the goal, and therefore turn out of a wrong road; it is another when I yield myself a prisoner. I get around a rock that stands in my way, till I have powder enough to blast it; I get around the laws of a people, till I have gathered strength to overthrow them. Because I cannot grasp the moon, is it therefore to be “sacred” to me, an Astarte? If I only could grasp you, I surely would, and, if I only find a means to get up to you, you shall not frighten me! You inapprehensible one, you shall remain inapprehensible to me only till I have acquired the might for apprehension and call you my own; I do not give myself up before you, but only bide my time. Even if for the present I put up with my inability to touch you, I yet remember it against you.

He kind of does here.

also a really good quote regarding his understanding of property

"“If you consume what is sacred, you have made it property!"

Stop posting any day now you retarded piece of shit. Your opinions and arguments are fucking worthless.

Stirner puts a distinction between property and ownership. This is just his philosophy, and it takes real work not to notice the distinction.

As always, the tranny faggot uses lies and deceit to pretend philosophers are arguing against what he wants to argue against. You've never given one fair argument about Stirner or Nietzsche

Property is psychic. Ownership is material. Stirner's point is you should not look at any material as being "not yours" in some immaterial sense, like another car has an essence of un-you in it. It's just a thing. What actually matters is who actually can exert power over the car.

This is so trivial and obvious I don't know why I bother explaining it. You're literally going on a long, losing tangent about something you don't understand. You just look like an annoying twat asshole, you take yourself way too seriously. You're a joke without an ounce of valuable words to put forth.

You really are a complete fucking moron

>Stirner puts a distinction between property and ownership.
Wrong

>my possession, my property, and I choose it for its use

Thats a bit dishonest as thats not actually Stirner but a quote from the translators preface

One out of context quote. Next time don't just copy paste text from the SEP and actually read the text, okay?

Think of it this way: Stirner says "do whatever you want with this rock". Does that mean I can make it float? No. It will still fall. I'm still limited by the materiality of things. That's all Stirner means, don't be beholden to principles of immateriality (I shouldn't touch the rock because spooky ghosts), be beholden to principles of materiality.

And now that you know, you can admit you're wrong and don't know anything, then proceed to shut the fuck up and let educated people speak.

Sorry not the translator but J.L walker

Why are you such an autistic fuck that you have to come at people with hostilitt? Why can't you say, "I'm not sure that's right, can you explain this quote?" versus coming at people like "YOU'RE WRONG!!! THIS ONE QUOTE PROVES YOU WRONG!!!"

Can't you realize that you come across like a stilted autist? Can't you realize how abrasive, rude and unchristian you are? Can't you realize that unabashed Socratism makes you a despised retard and not an enlightened gent?

>Constantine gets blown the fuck out

Today was a good day.

Okay there are a few ways to respond to Stirner. My favorite is just to read about the Harry Harlow experiments. The moral of that story is that being alone for a long time fucks up primates in the head. The thing Stirner didn't realize is that an individual human is closer to a stitch in a cloth than an individual monster. Nietzsche was more prescient here.

Second, you can go the Marxist route of pointing out that immaterial property is largely an irrelevance in comparison to the material reality of social class. Which is true. Who owns what doesn't matter if one is locked away in a prison.

Lastly, and this is basically a corollary of the first point, you don't actually desire amorality, because solitude is the worst punishment for a person. Actually having friends requires you to relinquish yourself to some degree.

Despite these I think Stirner holds up and it's not hard to hammer his philosophy into something relevant.

>Okay there are a few ways to respond to Stirner. My favorite is just to read about the Harry Harlow experiments. The moral of that story is that being alone for a long time fucks up primates in the head. The thing Stirner didn't realize is that an individual human is closer to a stitch in a cloth than an individual monster. Nietzsche was more prescient here.

>Lastly, and this is basically a corollary of the first point, you don't actually desire amorality, because solitude is the worst punishment for a person. Actually having friends requires you to relinquish yourself to some degree.

Yeah, but Stirner acknowledges the social interaction and cooperation are vital to your own self-interest.

As for the Marx thing, I think it's a wrong-headed way of looking at it. How you view your circumstance (which is what Stirner was getting at) is quite important. The difference between a prisoner who feels they should be a prisoner and a prisoner who feels that they own themselves and will do what it takes to free themselves is vast.

Explain how Stiner's conception of property differs from the Greek concept of idios (source of the word "idiot").

I know he did, my point is more that it's psychologically untenable to do what he suggests. You can't actually go around always thinking "what's in it for me?" We are largely unthinking creatures of habits and routines

I've read Stirner plenty of times, don't try to pretend that only people who agree with him understand him, like Nietzscheboos do. I know very well what Stirner's concept of a spook is, it's an essence. That doesn't mean the world is Stirner's property even in his sense.

*tips fedora*

Stirner's conception of property only applies at an individual level. And don't pretend like you actually understand a fucking thing you talk about.

>Stirner puts a distinction between property and ownership
Looking at the German, I'm going to revisit this as clearly wrong. The word translated as "property" is Eigentum (literally "owndom").

So are you not admitting that you have been dishonest or mistaken in attributing a quote to Stirner which was not actually his?

Dont you kind see the significance of this given how much weight you attach to this quote - to the point it overrides actual quotes by Stirner.

>Explain how Stiner's conception of property differs from the Greek concept of idios (source of the word "idiot").

You'll have to expand here I'm not familiar with the word or greek.

How is this connected to my point about your attribution of words?

You're reading way too much into the "my" part of "my property". "Everything is my property" means something closer to "abolish all property" than it does to "I literally own the deeds to every property ever". Stop being such a fedora.

Just because you read something doesn't mean you understood it. You're a grand example of a how a person can be well read yet totally clueless at the same time.

>I've read Stirner plenty of times

Evangelicals and JWs read the bible more than apostolic Christians do does that mean they understand it better?

That's true as well, and I think he acknowledges it backhandedly by pointing out that he has spooks of his own. If you try to make an absolute creed out of Stirner's work (which would be hilariously contradictory) you're gonna wind up disappointed, but I think as a general guideline it works well. The basic message of "don't hold anything sacred" is pretty workable.

>mistaken in attributing a quote to Stirner which was not actually his?
Yes.